1 in 4 living off benefits

[churchfcrules]

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

But who would pay the wages?

what wages?

they are already getting the money thats the whole point!

[garinda]

Originally Posted by churchfcrules

struggling? strange term to use, since it is a comment placed on a local forum, not that i am actually writing a manifesto here or anything!

even though when questioned, i did supply examples

but i am sure if i was to actually canvas the populous, genuine worthwhile causes could be found, the loose term of worthwhile causes should be more than ample to cover a hyperthetical argument, dont you think

as far the current CAB and help the aged, i gaurantee if you were to call either of these organisations this minute and state you wish to donate some of your time they would readily accept.

Don't get me wrong, I'm totally against people using the benefit system as a career option. Leave school, get banged up, and spend the next God know's how many years popping out sprogs and claiming benefit, who'll then carry on the family tradition themselved at the earliest age possible.

I do however disagree with your suggestion of making those genuine claimants 'work' for their money. To suggest that those who are unwell enough to do a real job, should be employed by the state in some sort of pseudo employment, is both unworkable and totally alien to a free market economy, in my opinion.

[churchfcrules]

Originally Posted by garinda

Don't get me wrong, I'm totally against people using the benefit system as a career option. Leave school, get banged up, and spend the next God know's how many years popping out sprogs and claiming benefit, who'll then carry on the family tradition themselved at the earliest age possible.

I do however disagree with your suggestion of making those genuine claimants 'work' for their money. To suggest that those who are unwell enough to do a real job, should be employed by the state in some sort of pseudo employment, is both unworkable and totally alien to a free market economy, in my opinion.

so you would agree that those eclaiming the absurdly named job seekers allowance should be forced to earn the money they claim?

[garinda]

Originally Posted by churchfcrules

so you would agree that those eclaiming the absurdly named job seekers allowance should be forced to earn the money they claim?

No I think those seeking employment should spend their time being encouraged to get an actual job as quickly as possible, and not be farting about doing pretend work.

Something that seems to be happening, according to the government's figures posted earlier in the thread.

[garinda]

I'd overall the current benefit system by scrapping the non-means tested child benefit.

For someone who had four children that would save £54.40 per week, or £2,828.80 a year.

[churchfcrules]

Originally Posted by garinda

I'd overall the current benefit system by scrapping the non-means tested child benefit.

For someone who had four children that would save £54.40 per week, or £2,828.80 a year.

i was read a report years ago that stated the reason that means tested child benefit has not been overhauled, is due to the more wealthier parents dont actually claim the benefit anyway, wether this is still the case i do not know, but why is everyone perfectlly happy to scrap a benefit for children, irrelevant of their income, but more than happy to allow malingerers carry on taking state handouts.
also one of my main arguements for forcing the unemployed to work, is that the majority would rather take a real job paying minimum wage than do 40 hours for no extra, plus those working whilst claiming simply couldnt do it.

just as a real job, if the person in question had an interview of course they could attend.

if you agree that the present system is flawed, and is being played by unscrupilious individuals, then change the system, as i said earlier there is no stigma with being on benefits, if there was more people would try harder to get off them,
or better still let all the bleeding hearts have their way and we will all have a pretend illness, claim benefits, let the insurance cover the cost of our mortgage and credit card bills, receive a car insurance and tax paid with regular services thrown in, oh but hang on who would be left to pay the bill no-one, or do you have enough faith in your fellow man that they wouldnt do it, cause i dont sorry!

[WillowTheWhisp]

Originally Posted by churchfcrules

what wages?

they are already getting the money thats the whole point!

Yes but the money is currently being paid by the Government. Would 'the tax payer' begin to complain that the people who are benefitting from the workers should be paying them?

[Eric]

Originally Posted by garinda

No I think those seeking employment should spend their time being encouraged to get an actual job as quickly as possible, and not be farting about doing pretend work.

Something that seems to be happening, according to the government's figures posted earlier in the thread.

Ah, someone talking sense. (and avoiding the childish"I saw a cripple who might have been pretending to be a cripple" bs.) And I agree that pretend work is just as much as a dead end as receiving welfare. Along with the encouragement, the govt does need to get serious about job creation, something other than handing out incentives to business. Business is just as adept at taking govt money and doing sweet f a, as is the individual; in fact probably better, because business can hire high priced legal aid to help it screw the public purse. And business is, of course, in the business of making money, not helping the worker, or the unemployed who wish to be workers. They have to be goaded, they are just as lazy about creating jobs as those who invent creative ways of avoiding work. I know that this means more govt intervention, but surely govt and the people in it should do more than look good at photo ops, and attend international meetings in the Bahamas, and sit around getting drunk at taxpayers' expense while their minions move bulls**t around with little silver trowels.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by churchfcrules

i was read a report years ago that stated the reason that means tested child benefit has not been overhauled, is due to the more wealthier parents dont actually claim the benefit anyway, wether this is still the case i do not know, but why is everyone perfectlly happy to scrap a benefit for children, irrelevant of their income, but more than happy to allow malingerers carry on taking state handouts.
also one of my main arguements for forcing the unemployed to work, is that the majority would rather take a real job paying minimum wage than do 40 hours for no extra, plus those working whilst claiming simply couldnt do it.

just as a real job, if the person in question had an interview of course they could attend.

if you agree that the present system is flawed, and is being played by unscrupilious individuals, then change the system, as i said earlier there is no stigma with being on benefits, if there was more people would try harder to get off them,
or better still let all the bleeding hearts have their way and we will all have a pretend illness, claim benefits, let the insurance cover the cost of our mortgage and credit card bills, receive a car insurance and tax paid with regular services thrown in, oh but hang on who would be left to pay the bill no-one, or do you have enough faith in your fellow man that they wouldnt do it, cause i dont sorry!

As someone who stated in another thread that he was a father of four, and by your own admission you're someone who thinks people should 'earn' their benefits, do you also think that perhaps children who receive child benefit should actually work for it as well, perhaps after school and at weekends, as you suggest other claimants should?

If so, my chimney needs sweeping.

[churchfcrules]

Originally Posted by garinda

As someone who stated in another thread that he was a father of four, and by your own admission you're someone who thinks people should 'earn' their benefits, do you also think that perhaps children who receive child benefit should actually work for it as well, perhaps after school and at weekends, as you suggest other claimants should?

If so, my chimney needs sweeping.

ok in answer to that,
1) as we have discussed earlier this is a non means tested benefit
2)the last time i looked the child is not the recipient of the benefit the parent is.
3)if i do "my job"of producing a well balanced, educated, well mannered, and well behaved, constructive member of society is that not me earning that benefit? and if i dont i lose the benefit, i am all up for that!
4) only a side note but only one is of school age, the others have left.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by churchfcrules

2)the last time i looked the child is not the recipient of the benefit the parent is.

Well are you suggesting parents should work for this non-means tested, tax free benefit, as you suggest other claimants should?

If so, I have rather a large chimney, adult as well as child size.

[churchfcrules]

Originally Posted by garinda

Well are you suggesting parents should work for this non-means tested, tax free benefit, as you suggest other claimants should?

If so, I have rather a large chimney, adult as well as child size.

see point 3

and it would have to be a pretty large chimney lol

[garinda]

Ok, so you are picking and choosing which benefit claimants should actually have to 'earn' that benefit, as you suggested.

Enough said.

[Stanaccy]

Originally Posted by churchfcrules

but why is everyone perfectlly happy to scrap a benefit for children, irrelevant of their income, but more than happy to allow malingerers carry on taking state handouts.
also one of my main arguements for forcing the unemployed to work, is that the majority would rather take a real job paying minimum wage than do 40 hours for no extra, plus those working whilst claiming simply couldnt do it.

just as a real job, if the person in question had an interview of course they could attend.

if you agree that the present system is flawed, and is being played by unscrupilious individuals, then change the system, as i said earlier there is no stigma with being on benefits, if there was more people would try harder to get off them,
or better still let all the bleeding hearts have their way and we will all have a pretend illness, claim benefits, let the insurance cover the cost of our mortgage and credit card bills, receive a car insurance and tax paid with regular services thrown in, oh but hang on who would be left to pay the bill no-one, or do you have enough faith in your fellow man that they wouldnt do it, cause i dont sorry!

The flaw in your argument is that this has already been tried in the late 70s, 80s and 90s. under various schemes such as TOPS and YOPS, YTS, Community Action, ET, EA, and various options under New Deal.

It doesn't work as a sizable amount of these folk have another "income" be it from dealing, burglary or any other illegal activity.

Also with regards the "You're sick but you can do something so we'll force you to type these letters for nothing" arrangement, how long do you think anyone would put up with this before getting another doctors letter stopping them from this.

The only way to get the sick back to work is with a very big carrot (encouragement and empathy) and a small stick, or you will be hit with the headlines "Sick government hits the ill".

Yes there are malingerers and skivers, yes the benefits system needs a revamp but if you just use punitive measures you will hurt the genuine disenfranchised.

[churchfcrules]

Originally Posted by garinda

Ok, so you are picking and choosing which benefit claimants should actually have to 'earn' that benefit, as you suggested.

Enough said.

just hold up on them there horses,
on what do you base that opinion, did i not direct you to point 3, which if you read accepts and addresses the view of working for benefits, thats the reason "my job" is in quotes, it then goes on to explain what is expected in return for that benefit, and if i fail, i am quite happy to lose the benefit.

now answer me this, why do i find myself having to explain everything twice to you, and referancing you to points i have already made?